When SCP-273's body is completely reformed, it awakens, with no memory of events after its recent death.

Apparently I need to be brought back to grammar school. Can anyone explain to me why this is correct? Dr. Bright already reverted it once so I didn't want to be presumptuous and try to fix it again if there was nothing wrong. I think I understand what it is trying to say, but that doesn't make it right. I'm pretty sure that this is a crazy sentence. Wouldn't it sound better like…

When SCP-273's body is completely reformed, it awakens, with no prior memory of events after its recent death.

Or even better..

When SCP-273's body is completely reformed, it awakens, with no memory of events leading up to its recent death

I realize that there's a high probability that I'm wrong and not reading this correctly, but I still insist that this is cringe-worthy and should be at least updated for syntax.

Thanks for all of your attention, time and explanations ahead of time guys, be gentle with me.

Re: 1 - Adding an extra word unneccessarily is just about always a poor choice when writing. And as 'prior' means 'earlier in time', I think its the only kind of memory there is. So further redundant.

Re: 2 - I reckon that would change the meaning of the original wording. The time unremembered is the time between death and waking up. So she would remember the events leading up to death. But upon restoring hours later would probably be like waking up from a nap that only felt like it lasted a second. I suppose.

1. I agree with that and tried to be careful about that in this scenario. But the way this sentence reads and breathes is that there are no memories of anything after its most recent death, which, as you've kind of pointed out, is also redundant. I feel like some words are missing as it is. But you're right my wording and placement was wrong and should look more like this…

When SCP-273's body is completely reformed, it awakens, with no memory of events prior to its recent death.

…but as I said in OP, Bright fixed something very similar to this in the past, citing it as incorrect and a misread.

2. I am not sure I follow. If the time spoken about is the time between death and resurrection, wouldn't that be redundant as well? Wouldn't we all just kind of assumed or agree that there is a state of unconsciousness during that time?

Again, I feel like this is trying to say she can't remember anything prior to death and resurrection, and falls short of it. It doesn't specify what events, only that there is no memory of some said events.

But the way this sentence reads and breathes is that there are no memories of anything after its most recent death, which, as you've kind of pointed out, is also redundant.

Redundant for our daily experiences, but not for the Foundation's. They have objective evidence for the existence of numerous forms of afterlife and incorporeal consciousness, so its worth noting that she doesn't remember in between her deaths, as opposed to SCP-1922, who wishes he didn't.

The reason I even mention that in this is because 273's properties, and article as a whole, are based on the resurrection process (and fact thereof lol!), not the time that it is in whatever afterlife it may or may not be in. So other skips that aren't mentioned within 273's artical shouldn't have any bearing on its own data and information, right? Maybe if it spoke more on that it would make sense or even be relevant, but I stand by what I said.

It really doesn't add anything like that. I still feel the flow suffers from this.

273's properties, and article as a whole, are based on the resurrection process (and fact thereof lol!), not the time that it is in whatever afterlife it may or may not be in.

That time is an integral component of the anomaly. If it were my job to research a person who repeatedly dies and comes back to life, I would be remiss in making assumptions about the subject's experience between death and resurrection. Even if I weren't a researcher I'd probably still want to ask that.

So other skips that aren't mentioned within 273's artical shouldn't have any bearing on its own data and information, right?

That's certainly not the way I interpret the 'no canon' rule. Articles don't have to directly reference or crosslink to each other to be considered as coexisting. "There's no canon" is just a way that, when there are two good articles that seem to contradict each other, I can simply enjoy them both without conflict. And personally, unless they contradict, I like to think as many do coexist as possible.

That time is an integral component of the anomaly. If it were my job to research a person who repeatedly dies and comes back to life, I would be remiss in making assumptions about the subject's experience between death and resurrection.

Realistically, I agree. If I didn't, I'd be saying I don't wonder what comes "after". It would be one of my first questions. But all I'm saying is the rest of this article doesn't tackle that question in any way afterward, and the preceding paragraph talks more about the resurrection process.

Re-reading the interview log for 273 makes me realize it definitly remembers things from its past, and that the statement is trying to convey what you basically said Boogey Man.

So as a final question to this topic, can we go in and edit that so that it reads a little better, or at least explains that it's talking about the point where she is dead?